Opening Minds in High School:
Results of a Contact-Based Anti-Stigma Intervention
Michelle Koller, Shu-Ping Chen, Joanne Ledoux-Moshonas, Angele D’Alessio, Josée DesLauriers, Heather Stuart
March 2013
www.mentalhealthcommission.ca
1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was made possible through funding from the Opening Minds Anti-Stigma/Anti-Discrimination Initiative of the Mental Health Commission of Canada. The work of the Mental Health Commission of Canada is supported by a grant from Health Canada. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors.
The authors wish to thank the schools, teachers, staff, students, community professionals and speakers who participated in this project.
The C.M.H.A./Champlain East Talking About Mental Illness Program would also like to acknowledge:
Funding Sources:
Mental Health Promotion of C.M.H.A./Champlain East is not a Ministry of Health and Long Term Care funded program, therefore we rely on United Way of S.D. & G., United Way of Prescott and Russell, Subway Franchise (Pascal, Jacques & Christian Brunet, owners) community donations, fundraising events, and revenues from workshops to sustain this program.
Participating School Boards:
Upper Canada District School Board-UCDSB
Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario-CDSEO Le Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario (CEPEO) Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l’Est ontarien-CSDCEO
2 OPENING MINDS: CHANGING HOW WE SEE MENTAL ILLNESS
As part of its 10-year mandate, the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) embarked on an anti- stigma initiative called Opening Minds (OM) to change the attitudes and behaviours of Canadians towards people with a mental illness. OM is the largest systematic effort undertaken in Canadian history to reduce the stigma and discrimination associated with mental illness. OM is taking a targeted approach, initially reaching out to healthcare providers, youth, the workforce, and media. OM’s philosophy is not to reinvent the wheel, but rather to build on the strengths of existing programs from across the county.
As a result, OM has actively sought out such programs, few of which have been scientifically evaluated for their effectiveness. Now partnering with over 80 organizations, OM is conducting evaluations of the programs to determine their success at reducing stigma. OM’s goal is to replicate effective programs nationally. A key component of programs being evaluated is contact-based educational sessions, where target audiences hear personal stories from and interact with individuals who have recovered or are successfully managing their mental illness. The success of contact-based anti-stigma interventions has been generally supported throughout international studies as a promising practice to reduce stigma. Over time, OM will add other target groups.
For more information, go to: www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/Pages/OpeningMinds.aspx
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 Introduction and Purpose
Stigma and discrimination have gained the attention of the public health and policy communities as a hidden and costly burden cause by society’s prejudicial reaction to people with a mental illness (World Health Organization, 2001). Stigma and discrimination pose major obstacles in virtually every life domain, carrying significant negative social and psychological impacts. Reducing stigma and discrimination have become important policy objectives at both international and national levels (Sartorius & Schulze, 2005).
The 2009 launch of the Mental Health Commission’s Opening Minds anti-stigma/anti-discrimination initiative marked the largest systematic effort to combat mental illness-related stigma in Canadian History.
The Opening Minds program has partnered with a number of programs that deliver contact-based education to primary and high school students throughout Canada. Contact-based education involves people who have experienced a mental illness to educate students by telling their personal stories and allowing time for active discussion. In some cases, teacher lesson plans accompany the classroom presentations.
This report is intended to provide programs with an overview of their key evaluation results. A subsequent initiative will examine each program’s components in depth in order to highlight the active ingredients that are associated with the largest change.
3.2 Program Overview 3.2.1 Program Description
The “Talking About Mental Illness” (T.A.M.I.) program outlines the importance of addressing mental health problems and prevention strategies. The T.A.M.I program integrates mental health promotion, prevention, and the importance of early intervention including community services for youth.
2
3.2.2 Program Outline – Talking About Mental Illness (TAMI)
This five-day high school program is designed to increase students’ awareness about mental health and decrease the stigma associated with mental illness. The topics are:
• Mental health/illness
This presentation is an introduction to subjects such as: mental health, mental illness, stigma and recovery.
• Types of disorders
This presentation educates participants about different types of mental illnesses, the myths and reality of mental illness, warning signs of mental illness and shows them where to get help.
• Suicide Awareness and Prevention
This education session aims to increase the participants’ awareness and general understanding of suicidal behaviour. Warning signs, risk factors, tips on developing helping attitudes, and identification of community resources are discussed.
• Stress management
This presentation offers simple, practical tips on how to reduce, manage and eliminate stress that may negatively impact our lives.
• Speaker testimonials
This presentation is an opportunity for the participants to hear the testimony of a person living with a mental illness.
Many anti-stigma activities are used in the program such as:
• Myths and realities game
• Student well-being report
• MuchMusic anti-stigma video clips
• Stereotype activity (parents, teens, men and women)
• Celebrity living with mental illness
• Anti-stigma surrounding suicide 3.2.3 Program Delivery
For the purpose of the evaluation project, the TAMI/Champlain East program was delivered to grade 11 students in the Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, and Prescott and Russell counties.
Funding permits the program to hire two Mental Health Promoters (MHP) for the school calendar year.
Their primary role is to deliver the T.A.M.I. program. They meet regularly with school principals, guidance and classroom teachers to make modifications to the program where needed. These modifications are
3
based on student learning needs and perhaps assist with some of the challenges related to student attitudes in dealing with other students’ mental health issues.
The MHP will also recruit and train volunteer speakers to deliver their testimonial on the last day of the program.
The decision to hire MHPs to deliver the program was a result of school board feedback expressing that teachers do not feel comfortable delivering the mental health material, nor do they feel they have the skills or resources to address the topic of mental health in the classroom. There were also concerns about self-disclosure among the students and about how they should handle arising situations. The program requires that teachers be present in the classroom to provide follow-up if needed. It also serves as a good way to educate them on the topic.
Annually, the program helps with approximately 38–45 students who self-identify as having mental health issues, a mental health diagnosis or suicidal thoughts. These individual students are immediately linked to either school resource personnel or community resources. At times they are referred to a CMHA programming intake worker. The presence of a community mental health resource person (MHP) delivering the T.A.M.I. program brings neutrality to the topic of mental illness and has established community linkages and resources to the schools. Education and awareness is key to preventing and reducing mental health concerns from being undiagnosed. Prevention is early intervention.
4 EVALUATION METHODS
Students were surveyed before and after the contact-based intervention.
All programs participating in this network initiative used the same pre- and post-test survey questionnaires to collect their data. These surveys were adapted from items used by the six contact-based programs that participated in the instrument development phase of this project. The resulting Stigma Evaluation Survey contained 22 self-report items. Of these:
• 11 items measured stereotyped attributions o controllability of illness – 4 items, o potential for recovery – 2 items, and
o potential for violence and unpredictability – 5 items
• 11 items measured expressions of social tolerance, which include both social distance and social responsibility items
o desire for social distance – 7 items, and
o social responsibility for mental health issues – 4 items
All items were scored on a 5-point agreement scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. To avoid potential response sets, some items were positively worded while others were negatively worded.
Items were scored so that higher scores on any item would reflect higher levels of stigma. The scales had
4
good reliability in this pooled sample with a pre-test Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77 for the Stereotype Scale and 0.82 for the Social Tolerance Scale. Both are well above the conventional threshold of 0.70 indicating that they are highly reliable. Information on gender, age, grade and prior contact with someone with a mental illness (close friend or family member) was also collected.
5 RESULTS
5.1 Sample Characteristics
Five hundred and fifty-two high school students completed the pre-test and post-test surveys. The characteristics of the students are presented in Table 1. There were slightly more males (55%) than females (45%). Just over half (55%) were 15 years old and most (71%) were in grade 11. On the pre-test, over half (61%) of the students indicated they knew someone with a mental illness and 16% indicated that they had a mental illness.
Table 1. Sample Characteristics for Those Who Completed Both the Pre- and Post-test
Characteristic n (=552) %
Gender
Female Male Missing
241 299 12
44.6%
55.4%
-- Age
13 14 15 16 17 18+ Missing
46 20 52 300 101
29 3
8.4%
3.6%
54.6%
18.4%
5.3%
0.2%
-- Grade
8 9 10 11 12 Missing
52 17 27 375
54 27
9.9%
3.2%
5.1%
71.4%
10.3%
-- Contact-Pretest – Does someone you know
have a mental illness*
No Uncertain Close friend Family member Somebody else I do
Missing
*Multiple responses accepted
112 90 50 120 132
81 28
17.2%
21.4%
9.5%
22.9%
25.2%
15.5%
--
5
5.2 Stereotype Attributions
With the exception of the items measuring dangerousness, violence and predictability, at the time of the pre-test, the majority of respondents held positive (non-stereotypical) attitudes toward people with a mental illness. For example, before the intervention students tended to disagree with the common stereotypes that people with a mental illness get what they deserve (79%) or that they need to be locked away (71%). Seventy percent disagreed that people with a mental illness could snap out of it if they wanted to and sixty-nine percent disagreed with the statement “People with a mental illness tend to bring it on themselves.”
However, only 25% disagreed with the stereotype you can never know what someone with a mental illness is going to do and only 30% disagreed with the statement that people with a mental illness often become violent if not treated (see Appendix A for detailed tables).
Figure 1 shows the proportion of students who made any change on the controllability items from pre- test to post-test (where pre-test and post-test surveys were individually matched). The greatest positive shift (reflecting reduced stigma) was for the item “People with mental illnesses often don’t try hard enough to get better” (36% improvement). The proportion that improved their response on the item
“People with a mental illness tend to bring it on themselves” was 30%. There was a 28% improvement for the item “People with mental illnesses could snap out of it if they wanted to” and a 27% improvement for the item “Most people with mental illness get what they deserve.” The majority of students (43%–56%) did not change scores. Percentages varied by item. These reflected two conditions: either they already held a non-stigmatizing attitude and stayed the same or they had a negative attitude on the pre-test and did not improve. A detailed item-by-item breakdown is shown in Appendix A. On all items, a proportion of students (17%-25%) showed a negative change. Please refer to Appendix A for specifics.
Figure 1. Proportion of students who made any change on the Likert scale from pre-test to post-test – Controllability Items (n=478 pre-test/post-test pairs). The bars show the proportion (%) of students who had a post-test score that was worse than the pre-test score, did not change, and got better.
22.8% 20.9% 24.9%
17.4%
47.5%
43.1% 47.5%
55.9%
29.7%
36.0%
27.6% 26.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tend to bring it on
themselves Often don't try hard
enough to get better Could snap out of it if
they wanted to Get what they deserve Worse score No change Better score
6
Figure 2 shows the proportion of students who made any change on the recovery items. Forty-four percent improved on the item “Most people with a mental illness are too disabled to work.” This was the largest improvement on any single item. Almost one third (32%) improved on the item “People with serious mental illnesses need to be locked away.” Students whose scores did not change reflected two conditions: either they already held a non-stigmatizing attitude and stayed the same or they had a negative attitude on the pre-test and did not improve. A proportion of students (12% and 23%) showed a negative change. Please refer to Appendix A for specifics.
Figure 2. Proportion of students who made any change on the Likert scale from pre-test to post-test – Recovery Items (n=478 pre-test/post-test pairs)
Figure 3 showsthe proportion of students who made any change on the items dealing with violence and unpredictability. All showed a large improvement of 37% or more. The greatest improvement was for the item “You can never know what someone with a mental illness is going to do” (42% improvement).
Students whose scores did not change reflected two conditions: either they already held a non- stigmatizing attitude and stayed the same or they had a negative attitude on the pre-test and did not improve. Some students (20%–25%) showed a negative change. Please refer to Appendix A for specifics.
11.7%
23.4%
43.9% 44.4% 44.6%
32.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Are too disabled to work Need to be locked away Worse score No change Better score
7
Figure 3. Proportion of students who made any change on the Likert scale from pre-test to post-test – Violence/Unpredictability Items (n=478 pre-test/post-test pairs)
5.3 Expressions of Social Distance
Priorto the intervention, students showed generally positive, non-stigmatizing responses to six out of the seven social distance items. For example, 72% disagreed with the statement “I would try to avoid someone with a mental illness” and 71% disagreed with the statement “I would not be close friends with someone I knew had a mental illness.” The most stigmatizing responses were given for the item “If I knew someone had a mental illness I would not date them,” with only 26% of respondents disagreeing with the statement (see Appendix A for detailed tables).
Figure 4 shows the proportionof students who made any change on the social distance items. All items showed improvement. For example, following the intervention there was a 39% improvement for the item
“If I knew someone had a mental illness I would not date them” and a 35% improvement for the item “I would not want to be taught by a teacher who had been treated for a mental illness.” Students whose scores did not change reflected two conditions: either they already held a non-stigmatizing attitude and stayed the same or they had a negative attitude on the pre-test and did not improve. Some students (12%–26%) showed a negative change (see Appendix A, p. A8).
19.7% 24.7% 22.4%
17.2% 19.5%
39.3% 36.4% 40.8% 44.1%
38.5%
41.0% 38.9% 36.8% 38.7% 42.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Often more dangerous than the average
person
Often become violent
if not treated Commit most violent
crimes Can't be relied on Never know what they will do Worse score No change Better score
8
Figure 4. Proportion of students who made any change on the Likert scale from pre-test to post-test – Social Distance Items (n=428 pre-test/post-test pairs)
5.4 Social Responsibility
Before the program intervention, students were generally socially responsible when a time commitment was not involved, such as sticking up for someone who had a mental illness if they were being teased (78%) or telling a teacher a student was being bullied (71%). (See Appendix A for detailed tables).
Figure 5 shows the proportion of students who made any change on the social responsibility items. The highest changes were for the items “I would tutor a classmate who got behind in their studies because of their mental illness” (32% improvement) and “I would volunteer my time to work in a program for people with mental illness” (32% improvement). Students whose scores did not change reflected two conditions:
either they already held a non-stigmatizing attitude and stayed the same or they had a negative attitude on the pre-test and did not improve. A proportion of students (19% and 22%) showed a negative change (see Appendix A, p. A8).
17.3% 17.8%
25.9%
19.9% 20.8%
11.7%
17.8%
51.4% 53.0%
44.4%
52.6% 55.1%
49.8%
47.0%
31.3% 29.2% 29.7% 27.6%
24.1%
38.6%
35.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Upset if someone with a mental illness always sat next to me in class
I would not be close friends with
someone I knew had a mental
illness
I would visit a classmate in hospital if they
had a mental illness
I would try to avoid someone
with a mental illness
I would not mind it if someone with
a mental illness lived next door to
me
If I knew someone had a mental illness I would not
date them
I would not want to be taught be a teacher who had been treated for a
mental illness Worse score No change Better score
9
Figure 5. Proportion of students who made any change on the Likert scale from pre-test to post-test – Social Responsibility Items (n=428 pre-test/post-test pairs)
5.5 Program Success
In order to provide a measure of the overall success of the intervention, we chose (a priori) a cut-off score of 80% correct. Though somewhat arbitrary, we have used this cutoff in previous work to count the number of students who achieve an A grade or higher following an educational session. More specifically, success was measured by comparing the proportion of students who obtained 80% or more correct (non- stigmatizing) answers on the post-test compared to the pre-test.
Figure 6 shows the cumulative percent of items reflecting non-stigmatizing responses for the Stereotype Scale. Prior to the intervention, 21% of students gave a non-stigmatizing response to at least 9 of the 11 stereotype items reflecting 80% correct (corresponding to the red dotted line on the graphs below). At post-test, this had increased to 43% (reflecting a 22% improvement overall). When item scores were aggregated to reflect a scale value out of 55 (higher scores reflecting more stigma), the average (median score) dropped from 26% at pre-test to 23% at post-test (reflecting a 6% drop in average score). A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test showed that at post-test there was a significant drop in the Stereotype Scale Score (Z= -8.531, p <.001).
14.0% 11.7% 13.2% 8.9%
62.3% 64.2%
56.8% 54.9%
23.7% 24.1% 30.0%
36.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I would tell a teacher if a student was being bullied
because of their mental illness
I would stick up for someone who had a mental illness if they were
being teased
I would tutot a classmate who got behind in their studies because of their
mental illness
I would volunteer my time to work in a program for
people with a mental illness Worse score No change Better score
10
Figure 6. Cumulative Percent of Stereotype Scale Items Reflecting Non-stigmatizing response (n=478)
Figure 7 shows the cumulative percent of items reflecting non-stigmatizing responses for the Social Tolerance Scale. Prior to the intervention, 31% of students gave a non-stigmatizing response to at least 9 of the 11 items reflecting 80% correct (corresponding to the red-dotted line on the graphs below). At post- test this had increased to 45% (reflecting a 14% improvement overall). When item scores were aggregated to reflect a scale value out of 55 (higher scores reflecting more stigma), the average (median score) dropped from 26% at pre-test to 24% at post-test (reflecting a 4% drop in average score). A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test showed that at post-test there was a significant drop in the Stereotype Scale Score (Z=
-6.123, p <.001).
Figure 7. Cumulative Percent of Tolerance Items Reflecting Non-stigmatizing response (n=428)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
At least 1 At least 2 items
At least 3 items
At least 4 items
At least 5 items
At least 6 items
At least 7 items
At least 8 items
At least 9 items
At least 10 items
All 11 items
Pre te st Po sttest
80% correct (Threshold of Success)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
At least 1 At least 2 items
At least 3 items
At least 4 items
At least 5 items
At least 6 items
At least 7 items
At least 8 items
At least 9 items
At least 10 items
All 11 items
Pretest Posttest
80% correct (Threshold of Success)
11
Figures 8 and 9 show the change in stereotype and social tolerance scale scores. Prior to the intervention, more respondents were positive (80% threshold, 9 out of 11 positive responses) on the tolerance scale (31%) compared to the stereotype scale (21%). After the intervention, the percent that improved their attitudes by crossing the 80% threshold was 29% (stereotype scale) and 23% (tolerance scale). The percent that improved their scores but did not cross the 80% threshold was 25% (stereotype scale) and 24%
(tolerance scale).
Figure 8. Change in Stereotype Scale Score (n=452)
Notes: To adjust for regression to the mean, pre-test outliers (those whose pre-test scale scores were over 2 standard deviations beyond the mean) where omitted from this analysis.
Figure 9. Change in Social Tolerance Scale Score (n=418) Worse,
18.1%
Improved, 24.6%
Newly positive 29.0%
Already positive, 14.4%
No change, 11.8%
Did not cross 80% threshold
Worse, 21.5%
Improved, 23.9%
Newly positive,
20.3%
Already positive, 23.7%
No change, 10.5%
Did not cross 80% threshold
12
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report describes the results of a contact-based anti-stigma intervention provided to high school students. The results show that this program was successful in improving the proportion of students who got 80% of the answers correct, so received an “A” grade on the tests used to assess social stereotypes and social tolerance. The program achieved greater success in diminishing stereotyped attitudes (22%
more students received an “A” grade at post-test) than expressions of social tolerance (14% more students received an “A” grade at post-test).
The positive findings suggest that there are components of the program that are working. Program staff consider a number of things contribute to their success, including:
• Champion schools/school boards support mental health initiatives
• School cultures in the area create wellness beyond these presentations
• Agency profile of CMHA has been raised through local media and school fundraisers
• Anti-stigma is central to the entire program
• Access to Guest Speakers: speaker selection/orientation/coaching/presentation preparations
• Delivery of the program is by Mental Health Promoters, not classroom teachers.
Other specific program activities that contribute to the success of the program include:
Day 1
The TAMI program addresses many of the stereotypes measured in the survey. For example, “tend to bring it on themselves” is dispelled when facilitators educate students on possible triggers and/or causes of mental illness and focus is placed on the fact that mental illness is an ILLNESS like any other.
Facilitators also challenge students with a competitive game “Myth or Reality” to dispel some of the common myths surrounding mental illness: “People could snap out of it if they wanted.”
They challenge the idea that “people get what they deserve” by educating or reminding students about the fact 1 in 5 will be affected by mental illness, that mental illness has no boundaries and it could happen to anyone. Program facilitators feel this message really sticks. They use the mental health and well-being report for current stats on youth mental health.
http://www.camh.ca/en/research/news_and_publications/ontario-student-drug-use-and-health- survey/Documents/2011%20OSDUHS%20Docs/2011OSDUHS_Detailed_MentalHealthReport.pdf Day 2
Pictures or videos of high profile individuals who live with mental illness such as athletes, celebrities and/or politicians are used. This addresses the “People with mental illness are too disabled to work”
stereotype. Many of the celebrities showcased are individuals who are highly respected by students. This changes their perception completely. In figure 4, social distance was measured and program staff believe
13
the use of high profile individuals makes a difference in regards to stigma because many of the celebrities are people the students look up to.
The TAMI program discusses types of disorders in terms of the stereotype “don’t try hard enough to get better.” The program educates students on common illnesses such as depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and they do this by showing video clips from www.teenmentalhealth.org that explain disorders in a way that is easy for students to understand. In “Ellie’s Depression” video, students realize that sometimes symptoms get in the way of someone getting better.
Figure 3 deals with violence. The program addresses this stereotype by providing students with an opportunity to hear a testimony from someone who has lived with a mental illness and is in recovery.
Having a real life person who does not fit the common stereotype is a really powerful way to reinforce the message and helps change attitudes. Many of the students thank the speakers, shake their hand and are both inspired and moved by the speaker’s journey into recovery.
Program staff believe a combination of education/awareness and real life experience is the winning combination in the success of this program. They try to ensure the learning activities are engaging and participatory to encourage group work and personal reflection on own mental health and well-being.
14
Appendix A
Stereotyped attribution items are shown in the three tables below. For ease of presentation, items were recoded into three categories: agree (strongly agree and agree), neutral, and disagree (disagree and strongly disagree) and grouped by theme controllability of illness, potential for recovery and potential for violence and unpredictability.
Stigma Stereotype Results Controllability Items Stereotyped Attributions Items Pre-test
%(n=478) Post-test
%(n=478) % Change 4. People with a mental illness tend to bring it
on themselves.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
68.6%(328) 20.9%(100) 10.5%(50)
72.0%(344) 16.9%(81) 11.1%(53)
3.4 -4.0 0.6
5. People with mental illnesses often don’t try hard enough to get better.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
66.1%(316) 22.0%(105) 11.9%(57)
72.8%(348) 18.6%(89)
8.6%(41)
6.7 -3.4 -3.3
6. People with a mental illness could snap out of it if they wanted to.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
70.1%(335) 22.0%(105) 7.9%(38)
71.8%(343) 17.8%(85) 10.5%(50)
31.7 -4.2 2.6
14. Most people with a mental illness get what they deserve.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
79.3%(340) 17.6%(96)
3.1%(42)
82.8%(396) 14.2%(68)
2.9%(14)
3.5 -3.4 -0.2
15
Recovery Items
Stereotyped Attributions Items Pre-test
%(n=478) Post-test
%(n=478) % Change 3. Most people with a mental illness are too
disabled to work.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
64.6%(3.9) 22.0%(105) 13.4%(64)
82.8%(396) 11.7%(56)
5.4%(26)
18.2 -10.3 -8.0
15. People with serious mental illnesses need to be locked away.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
71.1%(340) 20.1%(96)
8.8%(42)
76.2%(364) 16.5%(79)
7.3%(35)
5.1 -3.6 -1.5
16
Violence/Unpredictability Items
Stereotyped Attributions Items Pre-test
%(n=478) Post-test
%(n=478) % Change 7. People with a mental illness are often more
dangerous than the average person.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
42.9%(205) 31.6%(151) 25.5%(22)
58.8%(281) 23.2%(111) 18.0%(86)
15.9 -8.4 -7.5
8. People with a mental illness often become violent if not treated
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
29.5%(141) 47.3%(226) 23.3%(111)
43.7%(209) 32.4%(155) 23.8%(114)
14.2 -14.9 0.6
10. Most violent crimes are committed by people with a mental illness.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
58.8%(281) 26.6%(127) 14.6%(70)
67.2%(321) 20.5%(98) 12.3%(59)
. -6.1 8.4 -2.3
11. You can’t rely on someone with a mental illness.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
62.3%(298) 28.0%(134) 9.6%(46)
75.3%(360) 18.4%(88)
6.3%(30)
13.0 -9.6 -3.3
12. You can never know what someone with a mental illness is going to do.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/agree
25.1%(120) 31.4%(150) 43.5%(208)
42.3%(202) 23.8%(114) 33.9%(162)
17.2 -7.6 -9.6
17
Survey Item Negative change
% (n)
No change % (n) Positive change
% (n)
McNemar-Bowker Significance Stigmatizing*
% (n) Non-stigmatizing*
% (n) Controllability Items
4 People with a mental illness tend to bring it on themselves
22.8%
(109) 47.5% (227) 29.7%
(142) χ2 = 12.9; df = 10; p=.230 9.2%
(44) 38.3%
(183) 5 People with mental illnesses
often don’t try hard enough
to get better 20.9%
(100)
43.1% (209)
36.0%
(172) χ2 =26.6; df = 10; p=.003 9.6%
(46) 33.5%
(160) 6 People with a mental illness
could snap out of it if they wanted to
24.9%
(119)
47.5% (227) 27.6%
(132) χ2 =11.3; df = 10; p= .331 9.6%
(46) 37.9%
(181) 14 Most people with a mental
illness get what they deserve 17.4%
(83)
55.9% (267) 26.8%
(128) χ2 =15.2; df = 9; p= .086 7.7%
(37) 48.1%
(230) Recovery Items
3 Most people with a mental illness are too disabled to work
11.7%
(56)
43.9% (210) 44.4%
(212) χ2 = 107.0; df = 10;
p<.001 8.2%
(39) 35.8%
(171) 15 People with serious mental
illnesses need to be locked away
23.4%
(112)
44.6% (213) 32.0%
(153) χ2 =12.8;df =10 ; p=.237 8.2%
(39) 36.4%
(174) Violence / Unpredictability Items
7 People with a mental illness are often more dangerous than the average person
19.7%
(94)
39.3% (188) 41.0%
(196) χ2= 47.4; df = 10; p<.001 19.7%
(94) 19.7%
(94) 8 People with a mental illness
often become violent if not treated
24.7%
(118)
36.4% (174) 38.9%
(186) χ2 =44.2; df =10; p<.001 24.7%
(118) 11.7%
(56) 10 Most violent crimes are
committed by people with a mental illness
22.4%
(107)
40.8% (195) 36.8%
(176) χ2 =25.6 df =10; p=.004 13.8%
(66) 27.0%
(129) 11 You can’t rely on someone
with a mental illness 17.2%
(82)
44.1% (211) 38.7%
(185) χ2= 45.7; df =10; p<.001 9.6%
(46) 34.5%
(165) 12 You can never know what
someone with a mental illness is going to do
19.5%
(93)
38.5% (184) 42.1%
(201) χ2 =55.9; df 10=; p<.001 26.8%
(128) 11.7%
(56)
Notes:
• Base size is those who responded to all the pre-test and post-test items (n=478)
• Change was defined as moving on 5-point Likert Scale from the pre-test to the post-test (negative change: toward a more stigmatizing answer; positive change: toward a less stigmatizing answer)
• *The non-stigmatizing response means agree or strongly agree; the stigmatizing response includes unsure, disagree, and strongly disagree
• Statistical tests use the original five point scale, positive change does not necessary imply non-stigmatizing response
• Degrees of freedom depend on the number of non-empty cells and may vary by question due to different response patterns
18
Percent Non Stigmatizing Endorsement of Stereotype Items
Pre-test % (n=478) Post-test % (n=478)
None 2.9% (14) 2.7% (13)
At least 1 97.1% (464) 97.3% (465)
At least 2 items 94.4% (451) 95.8% (458)
At least 3 items 92.9% (444) 93.5% (447)
At least 4 items 86.8% (415) 91.0% (435)
At least 5 items 79.1% (378) 85.1% (407)
At least 6 items 66.3% (317) 76.6% (366)
At least 7 items 49.6% (237) 65.9% (315)
At least 8 items 34.7% (166) 54.0% (258)
At least 9 items 21.1% (101) 43.1% (206)
At least 10 times 11.5% (55) 29.9% (143)
All 11 times 5.0% (24) 13.4% (64)
Social Tolerance Results Social Distance Items Stereotyped Attributions Items Pre-test
% (n=428) Post-test
% (n=428) % Change 18. I would be upset if someone with a mental
illness always sat next to me in class.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/ agree
65.7% (281) 25.0% (107) 9.3% (0)
72.9% (312) 18.0% (77)
9.1 % (39)
7.2 -7.0 -0.2 19. I would not be close friends with someone I
knew had a mental illness.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/ agree
71.0% (304) 23.6% (101) 5.4% (23)
80.1% (343) 15.9% (68)
4.0% (17)
-7.7 9.1 -1.4 20. (R) I would visit a classmate in hospital if they
had a mental illness.
• Strongly agree/ agree
• Unsure
• Strongly disagree/disagree
61.4% (263) 28.7% (123) 9.8% (42)
65.9% (282)
21.7% (93) 12.4 % (53)
-7.0 4.5 2.6 21. I would try to avoid someone with a mental
illness.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/ agree
72.4% (310) 21.3% (91) 6.3% (27)
75.9% (325)
16.4% (70) 7.7% (33)
-4.9 3.5 1.4 22. (R) I would not mind it if someone with a
mental illness lived next door to me.
• Strongly agree/ agree
• Unsure
• Strongly disagree/disagree
70.1% (300) 18.2% (78) 11.7 % (50)
72.9% (312) 15.4% (66) 11.7% (50)
2.8 -2.8 0.0 24. If I knew someone had a mental illness I
would not date them.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/ agree
25.5% (109) 48.8% (209) 25.7% (110)
40.4% (173) 45.8% (196) 13.8% (59)
14.9 -3.0 -11.9 25. I would not want to be taught by a teacher
who had been treated for a mental illness.
• Strongly disagree/disagree
• Unsure
• Strongly agree/ agree
58.6% (251) 27.8% (119) 13.6 % (58)
71.0% (304) 22.4% (96)
6.5% (28)
12.4 -5.4 -7.1
Note: (R) Signifies the item was reverse coded in the scale calculation. Higher scale scores reflect higher levels of stigma
20
Social Responsibility Items Stereotyped Attributions Items Pre-test
% (n=428) Post-test
% (n=428) % Change 28. (R) I would tell a teacher if a student was
being bullied because of their mental illness.
• Strongly agree/ agree
• Unsure
• Strongly disagree/disagree
71.3% (305) 21.3% (91)
7.5% (32)
74.3% (318) 17.5% (75)
8.2% (35)
-3.8 3.0 0.7 32. (R) I would stick up for someone who had a
mental illness if they were being teased.
• Strongly agree/ agree
• Unsure
• Strongly disagree/disagree
77.8% (333) 17.8 % (76) 4.4% (19)
75.9% (325) 17.5% (75)
6.5% (28)
-1.9 -0.3 2.1 33. (R) I would tutor a classmate who got behind
in their studies because of their mental illness.
• Strongly agree/ agree
• Unsure
• Strongly disagree/disagree
47.4% (203) 36.9% (158) 15.7% (67)
57.5 % (246) 28.3% (121) 14.3% (61)
10.1 -8.6 -1.4 34. (R) I would volunteer my time to work in a
program for people with a mental illness.
• Strongly agree/ agree
• Unsure
• Strongly disagree/disagree
36.9% (158) 47.9% (205) 15.2% (65)
47.4% (203) 34.8% (149) 17.8% (76)
10.5 -13.1
2.6
Note: (R) Signifies the item was reverse coded in the scale calculation. Higher scale scores reflect higher levels of stigma
21
Percent Non Stigmatizing Endorsement of Social Tolerance Items
Survey Item Negative
change
% (n)
No change % (n) Positive change
% (n)
McNemar-Bowker Significance Stigmatizing*
% (n) Non-stigmatizing*
% (n) Social Distance Items
18 I would be upset if someone with a mental illness always sat
next to me in class 17.3% (74) 51.4% (220) 31.3%
(134) χ2 = 35.2 df =10;
p<.001 13.8%
(59) 37.6%
(161) 19 I would not be close friends
with someone I knew had a
mental illness 17.8% (76) 53.0% (227) 29.2%
(125) χ2 =21.3; df =9;
p=.001 8.6%
(37) 44.4%
(190) (R)20 I would visit a classmate in
hospital if they had a mental illness
25.9%
(111)
44.4% (190) 29.7%
(127) χ2 =14.2; df =10;
p=.164 11.9%
(51) 32.5%
(139) 21 I would try to avoid someone
with a mental illness 19.9% (85) 52.6% (225) 27.6%
(118) χ2 =21.9; df =10;
p=.015 9.3%
(40) 43.2%
(185) 22 (R) I would not mind it if
someone with a mental illness
lived next door to me 20.8% (89) 55.1% (236) 24.1%
(103) χ2 =7.4; df =10;
p=..690 10.5%
(45) 44.6%
(191) 24If I knew someone had a
mental illness I would not date them
11.7% (50) 49.8% (213) 38.6%
(165) χ2 =65.4; df =10;
p<.001 37.1%
(159) 12.6%
(54) 25 I would not want to be
taught by a teacher who had
been treated for a mental illness 17.8% (76) 47.0% (201) 35.3%
(151) χ2 =31.5; df =10;
p<.001 11.4%
(49) 35.5%
(152) Social Responsibility Items
28 (R) I would tell a teacher if a student was being bullied
because of their mental 19.2% (82) 57.2% (245) 23.6%
(101) χ2 =18.3; df =10;
p=.050 11.0%
(47) 46.3%
(198) 32 (R) I would stick up for
someone who had a mental
illness if they were being teased 21.5% (92) 57.9% (248) 20.6%
(88) χ2 =7.3;df =9; p=.680 10.0%
(43) 47.9%
(205) 33(R) I would tutor a classmate
who got behind in their studies because of their mental illness
20.3% (87) 48.1% (206) 31.5%
(134) χ2 =24.1; df =10;
p=.007 21.7%
(93) 26.4%
(113) 34(R) I would volunteer my time
to work in a program for people
with a mental illness 21.3% (91) 47.4% (203) 31.3%
(134) χ2 =28.2 df =10;
p=.002 26.9%
(115) 20.6%
(203)
Notes:
• Base size is those who responded to all the pre-test and post-test items (n=428)
• Change was defined as moving on 5-point Likert Scale from the pre-test to the post-test (negative change: toward a more stigmatizing answer; positive change: toward a less stigmatizing answer)
• *The non-stigmatizing response means agree or strongly agree; the stigmatizing response includes unsure, disagree, and strongly disagree.
• Statistical tests use the original five point scale, positive change does not necessary imply non stigmatizing response.
• Degrees of freedom depend on the number of non-empty cells and may vary by question due to different response patterns
22
Pre-test % (n=428) Post-test % (n=428)
None 4.0% (17) 4.2% (18)
At least 1 96.0% (411) 95.8% (410)
At least 2 items 94.2% (403) 94.4% (404)
At least 3 items 91.1% (390) 91.6% (392)
At least 4 items 84.1% (360) 88.6% (379)
At least 5 items 76.4% (327) 83.2% (356)
At least 6 items 66.8% (286) 74.3% (318)
At least 7 items 55.8% (239) 64.3% (275)
At least 8 items 43.9% (188) 54.9% (235)
At least 9 items 30.6% (131) 44.9% (192)
At least 10 times 15.2% (65) 29.9% (128)
All 11 times 4.0% (17) 12.6% (54)
Already positive %
(n) Positive Change %
(n) Did Not Cross 80%
Threshold % (n)
Stereotype scale score
(n=452) 14.4% (65) 29.0% (131) 56.6% (256)
Social tolerance scale
score (n=249) 23.7% (99) 20.3 % (85) 56.0% (234)
Notes:
To adjust for regression to the mean, pretest outliers (those whose pretest scale scores were over 2 standard deviations beyond the mean) where omitted from this analysis.
The responses to the items on each of the scales can be summed to obtain a scale score. The possible score for each scale ranges from 11 to 55 with a lower score indicating less stigma.
Scale scores
Stereotype Scale Score (n=478)
Median (interquartile range)
Pre-test 26 (22-30)
Post-test 23 (19-29)
Tolerance Scale Score (n=428)
Median (interquartile range)
Pre-test 26 (21-30)
Post-test 24 (19-29)
23
